The Instigator
B3N
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
themohawkninja
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
themohawkninja
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,240 times Debate No: 39846
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

B3N

Pro

First round: just accept! Do not argue or give any points
2nd: give your case
3rd: build up and cut down each others
4th: say why you should win.
*NOTHING BUT I ACCEPT IN FIRST ROUND*
themohawkninja

Con

I accept this debate. Discussing nuclear arms in always fun.
Debate Round No. 1
B3N

Pro

We are all aware that there is a McDonalds in about every city in the world. Imagine if for every other one, there was a nuclear weapon in the world. According to McDonalds, that would be a lie. There are actually even MORE nuclear weapons than that.

I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.

First I would like to define a few terms:

Unilateral Military force: Force or action preformed or supported by the armed forces of only one country.

Justified: Decision, action, or idea that is good, reasonable, and acceptable

Nuclear Proliferation: The spread of nuclear weapons or ability to make them.

My three contentions are nuclear proliferation is a threat today, nuclear weapons should not be able to be used, and we can stop wars and violence.

My first contention is nuclear proliferation is a threat. There are over 17000 nuclear weapons in the world today. These are not in just large powerful nations such as the US or Russia though. They are spreading rapidly and causing more of a threat. The International Atomic Energy Agency predicts even Iran and North Korea are coming into possession of them in less than 10 months. This just shows how nuclear proliferation can happen anywhere. This is a dangerous situation to not act against. This is the weapon that the first two built destroyed an entire city. Now there is not one, two, but 9 main nuclear weapon countries holding a total of over 17,000 warheads that have many enemies including each other. At least 5 of these at this moment could destroy the world many times over. The President calls nuclear proliferation "the single biggest threat to U.S. Security, both short-term, medium-term, and long-term." We unilaterally fight our own problems in regard to our security every day such as cyber threats, economy threats, and military threats. If we are justified to unilaterally prevent these threats, then what changes that fact when we face our largest threat?

My second contention is nuclear weapons should not be able to be used. Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous to anyone threatened to be attacked by them which we proved many are so. These are weapons that have in the past, told by PBS, had the power of 33 BILLION pounds of TNT. According to a New York Times statistic, an average of 99.5% of those people would be innocent civilians that had nothing to do with the conflicts between the fighting nations. Also from the New York Times, the United States is even cutting down on their own supply. So this is not a case of us wanting more power than other countries. We are not being hypocrites. Not we nor anyone else should have these kinds of weapons. THAT is why we are so worried and anxious to get these WMDs out of enemy hands. We would not only be saving our lives but the lives of our fellow countries and the safety of the entire world. So why wouldn"t we be justified in doing so?

My third contention is that we can stop wars and violence. We are talking about being justified, or being just in our actions. How is letting nuclear strikes and war more just at all? We should be more worried about not taking action. Fox News says that if a nuclear weapon was fired then it would likely cause allies to join in fighting like a domino effect. They give North Korea and China as example which happen to be two of the nuclear weapon states that threaten us. We should do everything it takes to stop a war to break out because of this lie we did in 1962. That was the date of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia, another threat, was transporting nuclear weaponry to Cuba that could have easily caused another world war if they had succeeded as said by the National Government Archives. We stopped them with a peaceful military force in the form of a blockade and ended this crisis without a single shot being fired. This saved so many lives and we should be able and justified to do so again if the problem arises.

In conclusion, being justified by the Collins English Dictionary is being good, reasonable, and acceptable. Saving lives from being destroyed by nuclear weapons is a good deed, it is more reasonable then allowing them to die, and will be accepted by all countries who would value life. This does not mean unilateralism is the only way. It means it is a way and is justified with or without others. For the reasons that are there are many nuclear threats, nuclear threats should not be used, and we can stop wars and violence, I urge you to vote PRO.
themohawkninja

Con

My first contention is...

While it is very true that there are over 17,000 nuclear warheads in the world, every single one of those nuclear warheads are in the possession of a country that is a member of the U.N [1][2]. This is an important point, as the first resolution adopted by the U.S. was the "establishment of a commission to deal with the problem raised by the discovery of atomic energy" [3]. Lastly on this point, while you assert that the U.S. is justified in a unilateral approach to nuclear non-proliferation due to our unilateral approach of military threats, 62% of people think that the Iraq war (which was based heavily on the pretense of W.M.Ds) was a mistake, and furthermore the would-be unilateral approach to Syria was opposed by 48% of the population, with only 29% in favor [4][5]. How much is it worth to a leader to deal with the possibility of a nuclear proliferation in a country if his people (whom democratically elected him) are against him?

My second contention is...

While you assert that the U.S. has proven the danger of a nuclear attack simply by mere threat, you fail to cite one single time where the U.S. merely threatened nuclear attack. Secondly, while the number you assert for the power of the bombs is probable (33 billion pounds = 16,500,000 T = 16.5 MT = about 1/3 the power of the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated), those bombs are in the hands of the U.S., and such weapons took decades to develop [6]. It should be noted that the first atomic bomb ever detonated was only 20 KT, or only 12% of 1% the yield of the Tsar Bomba. I would find it highly doubtful that either one of our allies (who has a proficiency in nuclear arms manufacturing) would turn on us, or even less so that a terrorist would be able to make one as it cost the U.S. $2,000,000,000 in 1945, which is about $25,000,000,000 today [7][8]. Lastly on this point, while you assert that it would be saving the lives of our citizens, and those of our allies, I would like to refer back to my previous point about how the Iraq war was based on such a pretense.

My third contention is...

Firstly, I would like to indoctrinate you on the accuracy of Fox News. There is an entire Wikipedia page with 169 sources devoted to "Fox News Channel controversies" [10]. Secondly, you use the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis to show how the U.S. succeeded at preventing nuclear war. While it is known that the Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest that the U.S. ever came to nuclear war, it should be noted that neither country actually wanted to go to war as messages were sent from Khrushchev to President Kennedy, therefore it was not technically unilateral, as both sides were trying to avoid a nuclear war [11].

In conclusion, unilateral military force by the U.S. for the purposes of nuclear non-proliferation is unjustified, because all known nuclear weapons are in the control of members of the U.N., the cost to produce a nuclear bomb is far beyond that which any terrorist group could allocate money to, and lastly because there are no historical examples to show that such unilateral approaches are justified.

1. http://www.un.org...
2. http://armscontrolcenter.org...
3. http://www.un.org...
4. http://www.pollingreport.com...
5. http://www.people-press.org...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://news.google.com...
8. http://www.westegg.com...
9. http://www.salon.com...
10. http://en.wikipedia.org...
11. http://microsites.jfklibrary.org...
Debate Round No. 2
B3N

Pro

I would like to first to over my opponents arguments and then my own if necessary.

My opponent's first point seemed to just talk about why its a bad idea, but the question is: do we have good reasons to (Justification)? Nuclear proliferation is one of our largest threats to our security today which is in itself a perfectly good reason to use unilateral military force. We use it to fight all our other threats, so why not this one?

His second point was on the improbability of another country being able to use these kinds of weapons. The billions of tons of TNT was an example of what these bombs can do, and now even Iran is coming into possession of them according to the New York Times and The Economist. If Iran could get them, who knows who else? We need to stop this before anyone gets a chance to uses them offensively. Again, we are also getting rid of ours so it would not be hypocritical if we got rid of these. These are not for defense either so it we are not taking away their protection either. How do I know they are not for defense? Well, next time an army is marching toward you, try firing a nuke straight at them and see what happens. Oh wait, you would be dead. Burnt to a crisp to be exact.

Thirdly he tried to disprove that the Cuban Missile crisis was unilateral, but that is defined as common knowledge that is is. If you would like proof even though it is not needed, ask. He also used Wikipedia as his source which is terribly unreliable which makes his argument... That's right: unreliable.

I would like to conclude saying that justified does not mean the best way, the only way, or the right way. It just means that we have good and acceptable reasoning. Thank you and I urge you to vote PRO.
themohawkninja

Con

"My opponent's first point seemed to just talk about why its a bad idea, but the question is: do we have good reasons to (Justification)? Nuclear proliferation is one of our largest threats to our security today which is in itself a perfectly good reason to use unilateral military force. We use it to fight all our other threats, so why not this one?"

As pro, it is your job to assert burden of proof for your statement. I saw your assertion, and gave it a firm rebuttal, therefore showing that there is not good reason to partake in unilateral military action for the prevention of nuclear proliferation. Nuclear threats are not one of the largest threats to our security today, because such threats haven't even happened. No terrorist group has ever acquired a sufficient amount of nuclear material to make a bomb, as the only time anyone has ever illicitly acquired nuclear material was 79.5 grams of 89% enriched uranium, which isn't even weapons grade [1][2]. In fact, what should be considered a real threat to the U.S. is the possibility of another biological attack, as unlike nuclear attacks, a biological attack did occur one week after the September 11th terrorist attacks which infected 23 people, five of those people died.

"His second point was on the improbability of another country being able to use these kinds of weapons. The billions of tons of TNT was an example of what these bombs can do, and now even Iran is coming into possession of them according to the New York Times and The Economist. If Iran could get them, who knows who else? We need to stop this before anyone gets a chance to uses them offensively. Again, we are also getting rid of ours so it would not be hypocritical if we got rid of these. These are not for defense either so it we are not taking away their protection either. How do I know they are not for defense? Well, next time an army is marching toward you, try firing a nuke straight at them and see what happens. Oh wait, you would be dead. Burnt to a crisp to be exact.

Ah, but Iran doesn't have a nuclear warhead. In-fact, news agencies have been saying that Iran has been close to acquiring a nuclear bomb for years. According to a CBS report from over a year ago, Iran was allegedly able to get the needed material within four months, and this just isn't so even 13 months later [3]. Iran's nuclear capability has been grossly over-exaggerated. I would concur that we should not be hypocritical, and keep hostile nations from acquiring nuclear bombs, but why does do this alone when we could have the entire force of the U.N. behind us? Surely, this would look much better from a foreign relations standpoint as our unilateral approaches haven't even been liked by our own country.

"Thirdly he tried to disprove that the Cuban Missile crisis was unilateral, but that is defined as common knowledge that is is. If you would like proof even though it is not needed, ask. He also used Wikipedia as his source which is terribly unreliable which makes his argument... That's right: unreliable."

Where is such alleged common knowledge? I cited a letter from Khrushchev to the President of the United States showing how both sides did not want to go to nuclear war. This shows that both sides were interested in the idea of cutting down their nuclear arms, thereby causing a non-unilateral approach to nuclear non-proliferation. Also, Wikipedia is considered a legitimate source by my college professors, and as I stated, the page I cited has 169 external sources. If you wish to call that article unreliable, then you must show that those 169 sources of information are too unreliable.

In conclusion, America is not justified in a unilateral approach to nuclear non-proliferation as the threat of nuclear attack on the U.S. is historically not the highest threat, Iran has yet to make a nuclear bomb, regardless of what mass media asserts, and lastly that there is historical evidence to show that even when tens of thousands of nuclear warheads are on the line, a non-unilateral approach is still feasible.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.cbsnews.com...
Debate Round No. 3
B3N

Pro

B3N forfeited this round.
themohawkninja

Con

In conclusion, unilateral military force by the United States for the purposes of nuclear non-proliferation are unjust, because it has never been shown to work historically, unilateral actions of the U.S. have been historically against the will of the people, and it is highly unlikely for any country with nuclear devices to attack the U.S., or for an independent group to even make a nuclear device to attack the U.S. or their allies with.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
New York times, and the Economist maybe, but as I showed, there is far too much evidence against Fox news (even recently) to call it a good source, and I see no reason why the NFL calls Fox news good, and Wikipedia bad, when college professors even allow Wikipedia.
Posted by B3N 3 years ago
B3N
Actually Fox News, New York time, the economist, etc are really good to use as sources for modern evidence. I am a competitor and member of the national forensics league and do this competitively. I know how it works or I would be pretty screwed.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
The thing is though, is that I was citing the whole article since it had all of the cases in it, so citing each source would take up half of my character limit.

I would imagine the same thing would happen to you if you cited Fox news. They recently gave a false story that was given to them by somebody just because it was conservative. The source knew it was fake, but Fox reported it unbeknownst to the truth.
Posted by B3N 3 years ago
B3N
I understand what you are thinking, but the thing is that anyone can make accounts and change the wiki article and not use any sources so you do not know where the sources are used and if the author correctly paraphrased. Next time you should fine where that specific part came from and site that source instead. It looks a lot better. Trust me in the National Forensics League that I'm a novice in, you would pretty much lose automatically if you cited wiki.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
@thedebatekid

If you read the rest of the explanation, that wiki article had 169 external sources. Therefore you are asserting that Fox > 169 separate sources of information.
Posted by thedebatekid 3 years ago
thedebatekid
In my vote i said he used Hitler to disprove Fox. I meant wikipedia. We were talking about Hitler in the school hour when I was typing so that was in my mind at the time.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
@themohawkninja:

Was that directed at me? If so, those were quotes from Pro...the point being that CAN does not equal WILL necessarily; Pro was basically arguing for a "when all else fails" model, and trying to say "Yeah, but there's the UN" fails if we presume, as Pro seemed to, that there might be occasions when the UN wouldn't support us, but the US would still want to prevent the proliferation. Overall, I didn't even award arguments just because it was all too nebulous in terms of the resolution and concepts defended.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
Eh, it was the conclusion, so it's not like it mattered all that much.
Posted by B3N 3 years ago
B3N
Sorry got grounded and couldnt finish
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
I didn't assert that unilateralism is the only way, as from my third round: "I would concur that we should not be hypocritical, and keep hostile nations from acquiring nuclear bombs, but why does do this alone when we could have the entire force of the U.N. behind us?"
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by thedebatekid 3 years ago
thedebatekid
B3NthemohawkninjaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Reason for Vote: Conduct- pro forfeited round 4 Grammar- u where ok on stuff but could be perfecter (he said purposefully messing up the sentence) Convincing- the argument was whether or not it was justified (defined by pro) not whether or not it was a good idea Sources- TMN said on a forum that he used hitler to disprove fox, well FOX > WIKI so i believe B3N gave better resources.
Vote Placed by Putt-Putt 3 years ago
Putt-Putt
B3NthemohawkninjaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did happen to FF the last round, but I would like him to know that some of the arguments made were great. Just be sure to use sources to back them up in the future.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
B3NthemohawkninjaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited round, plus pro not being uptight about con not using the pre-defined word choice for acceptance.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
B3NthemohawkninjaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.